|
|
Hospitality Magazine The stadium – how it should be funded With Christmas fast approaching, the funding of Eden Park needs to be finalised. The alternative proposals to Eden Park and a range of other agendas have made this debate far more complicated than it needs to be or should be. New Zealand won the bid for the World Cup on the basis that we could provide an appropriate venue for the final with a seating capacity for 60,000. All of New Zealand benefit from having the cup in New Zealand with games being played in most major centres. It is perfectly reasonable that the taxpayer fund the cost of an Eden Park upgrade to provide for 13,000 extra seats. That does not mean however that the taxpayer should be paying for an upgrade beyond that even though enhancing the facility which may be highly desirable and sensible. That portion of any upgrade should rightly be funded by the region which will get the most benefit, being Auckland. In other words, the minimum expenditure required to provide for an extra 13,000 either permanent or temporary seats, should be borne by the national taxpayer. Anything in addition should be borne by the regional ratepayers. A bed or travel tax is simply not fair or equitable. There is no linkage between either those who stay in Auckland’s hotel beds or happen to pass through Auckland Airport and the usage of Eden Park. A bed tax has as much rationality as a 50c surcharge on every taxi hired in Auckland. Equally, there is no justification in a regular Wellington traveller to Auckland through either a travel or bed tax paying more towards the cost of upgrading Eden Park than Auckland ratepayers. The World Cup benefits the whole of New Zealand. New Zealand should meet its commitment to the additional 13,000 seats. The rest of the upgrade and the paying for it should rightly be Auckland’s decision. Bruce H Robertson 5 December 2006 Ref: h:hr6r6148.doc |
|
